Henry Hank wrote:always thought that in the Cup season, beyond the coaching change, it was important that they brought in Kunitz, Guerin, and Adams to reinforce what they wanted to do. All three were previous Cup winners, played with some grit, and most importantly played simple north-south games. It's funny but that's exactly the kind of thing that needs to be reinforced again. This group clearly knows how they have to play. A lot of them were doing it two years ago when Crosby/Malkin were hurt and last year without Crosby. With the full squadron, they get stupid and try to play video game hockey for some reason.

Yes adding those players were definitely key to winning the cup, I have also always been convinced that while Bylsma clearly got the team back to the right mentality, the penguins could have switched to any competent coach and they would had done the same. The way the team played before Bylsma took over is the same way we have seen them play on and off since then just never for such a long run as during that season. While one could argue that maybe they are going back to that because they had the same coach for a long time now and they are just not listening, the alarming thing to me about that is that we saw them play that careless uninspired hockey as early as in the season after the cup win. I am not saying that it is toxic necessarily but we have a lot of players who get easily frustrated and defeatist on the ice, its apparent when you watch the games and it is to a great extent our best players. Especially Malkin and Letang are thrown off their game very easily. I won't make a stand on coach change or not, but I am convinced that if we change coach, we are still looking at having to solve the same problem of changing the mentality of the team. We just need 1-2 calm heads on the ice to do what Gonchar and Guerin did.

Neal, Sid, and Kunitz has produced 3 ES goals in 2 games. Hard to say they're not clicking.

People shaking their heads at our core players' immaturity have to realize that these guys are 25 year olds. Maybe these posters haven't gotten there yet themselves, but for anyone old enough to have lived through their 20's and be able to look back on them should not be surprised at some of the travails that these guys are going through. The ups can be really high and the lows pretty low.

More than anything, this is why they need more stability from vets, particularly in their forward unit. Guys like Orpik, Kunitz, Dupuis, Cooke are all getting to that point where they can lend their grizzled vet presence, but they're not their yet, and they're too familiar anyways. The emergence of Martin as this team's #1 is superb, and perhaps the biggest reason for improvement / optimism from last season. I think he can be that voice and example of stability from the blueline, but we need a guy up front who will go out after a bad goal and crash the net like a wombat from hell.

pcm wrote:People shaking their heads at our core players' immaturity have to realize that these guys are 25 year olds. Maybe these posters haven't gotten there yet themselves, but for anyone old enough to have lived through their 20's and be able to look back on them should not be surprised at some of the travails that these guys are going through. The ups can be really high and the lows pretty low.

I don't think you have to be shaking your head at it, there are surely many explanations for WHY they are losing their heads but the fact is still that they DO and that needs to be solved. The question is what players currently on the market can fill that function on the team.

The Pens didn't lose their cool at Carolina. They played lazy, indifferent, undisciplined hockey. It seems to go hand-in-hand with their particularly bad performances of the past few years, including playoffs.

What seems to be the problem is that there is nobody in this team, from player to coach, willing to make some people uncomfortable in that locker room.

In the Art of War on discipline:

"I presume you know the difference between front and back, right hand and left hand?"

The girls replied: Yes.

Sun Tzu went on: "When I say "Eyes front," you must look straight ahead. When I say "Left turn," you must face towards your left hand. When I say "Right turn," you must face towards your right hand. When I say "About turn," you must face right round towards your back."

Again the girls assented. The words of command having been thus explained, he set up the halberds and battle-axes in order to begin the drill. Then, to the sound of drums, he gave the order "Right turn." But the girls only burst out laughing. Sun Tzu said: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, then the general is to blame."

So he started drilling them again, and this time gave the order "Left turn," whereupon the girls once more burst into fits of laughter. Sun Tzu: "If words of command are not clear and distinct, if orders are not thoroughly understood, the general is to blame. But if his orders ARE clear, and the soldiers nevertheless disobey, then it is the fault of their officers."

Complacency. There are no repercussions for poor play. I dont think they have tuned DB out, in fact I think they love the guy. There lies the problem. They haven't played DB's system consistently for a long time. 18 freelancers with no identity.

penmyst wrote:So where is the diconnect? Is it the general or the officers? General=HCDB, officers=on-ice leaders.

Because there is a problem in there somewhere.

Impossible for any of us to tell. However, the head coach is ultimately accountable. If the players aren't listening, it's a problem he has to solve. It's part of his job.

Anyway, this analogy is completely flawed. The "on-ice leaders" are peers with no real authority over their teammates, not officers. It's so incredibly naive to think the Pens are going to trade for a Gary Roberts type guy, and he's going to will them to play better D. DB may be the general, but he and his staff are also the officers.

IMO, star players need a tough coach who isn't afraid to send a message. Remember when Bowman did things like put Coffey on left wing and Fedorov on the 3rd line and D? I think a player coach only does well as a short-term follow-up to a disciplinarian.

Desiato wrote:Impossible for any of us to tell. However, the head coach is ultimately accountable. If the players aren't listening, it's a problem he has to solve. It's part of his job.

Yes, if we aren't going to parse the particulars- at the end of the day, it is HCDB who is responsible. Maybe somebody should fill Dan in on that, so he might realize he needs to put responsibility in front of being the player's buddies?

Desiato wrote:Anyway, this analogy is completely flawed. The "on-ice leaders" are peers with no real authority over their teammates, not officers. It's so incredibly naive to think the Pens are going to trade for a Gary Roberts type guy, and he's going to will them to play better D. DB may be the general, but he and his staff are also the officers.

IMO, star players need a tough coach who isn't afraid to send a message. Remember when Bowman did things like put Coffey on left wing and Fedorov on the 3rd line and D? I think a player coach only does well as a short-term follow-up to a disciplinarian.

As the cliche goes, you can't fire the whole team.

It's not flawed.

While there is no direct chain of command, such as in a military situation, that does not mean there aren't players who have the commanding presence to lead. Most of us see this in our workplaces, or perhaps in social casual gatherings. Where even though most of us are on "even" ground with each other, there are certain people who command respect or can organize/direct others. Leaders and followers. And it's not always your most talented players, despite sports wisdom of always handing these "C"s and "A"s to them.

I personally DO think that player leadership gets a bit too much touting by the media, and us fans.

But that is not to say that it is entirely dispensable. Frankly, a guy like Gary Roberts could probably do some good for this team. There are ways to get your point across to other players (fellow workers if you will) that some people can do with gravitas. At work, we like to call these guys "pushers". They can set the tone for the group, keep focus, and drive any stragglers to get with the program.

Or as I said above, somebody to make things uncomfortable in that locker room when pathetic efforts are being output on the ice. Especially if it's being clearly laid out by the coaching staff what to do, and guys aren't doing it or aren't putting effort into.

Carolina was yet another loss where the Pens were simply lazy, sloppy, and listless. The recent rash of penalties (not as bad in Carolina as it should have been) is being attributed to the Pens being emotional. BULLPUCK. Penalties happen when you get outhustled, are lazy mentally/physically to be out of position, and are being outplayed. If the emotion is apparent, it is coming AFTER the fact. People usually get angry/emotional when their eff-ups are making their life hard.

I'm not pleased that this is happening, but if it was going to happen, I'm glad it's now. Earlier this year, the Pens were cruising. Then they blew an embarrassing game to the Islanders where they got cocky, tried to mail it in, and got spanked by an inferior team. They responded by locking down and playing a great team game for the next string of games.

Now, that focus they were playing with has slipped again. It's time for the leaders of this team (Sid, Brooks, Kunitz) to rally the troops again to buckle down and play solid team hockey. I do think we have been missing some leadership since the cup run, and adding a guy in the Guerin mold would do them some good. Even Staal, though he was young, was a leader that is now missed.

We could get spanked again in Montreal, it's possible, but I think it's more likely these past two games woke the Pens up again, and we are going to see some tight checking, low scoring defense first games out of them in this stretch. Here's hoping. Here's also hoping Martin returns soon. He is a huge part of that equation.

How come nobody's talking about how bad the power play was last night? On 3 out of the 4 PP's we had, we registered exactly 0 shots on goal.. ZERO SHOTS ON GOAL. That's three powerplays without a single SOG. That's pathetic! The third power play was at least decent, as we got a few shots off. Overall the power play has been pretty good this year, but not great, and definitely not as good as it probably could be considering the personnel we have out there.

smoothmoneyb wrote:How come nobody's talking about how bad the power play was last night? On 3 out of the 4 PP's we had, we registered exactly 0 shots on goal.. ZERO SHOTS ON GOAL. That's three powerplays without a single SOG. That's pathetic! The third power play was at least decent, as we got a few shots off. Overall the power play has been pretty good this year, but not great, and definitely not as good as it probably could be considering the personnel we have out there.

Probably because it is hard to make any meaningful analysis of the PP when one of the key players on it is missing. Yes the PP was bad, and it could definitely be way better even without Malkin but they have also worked with those five all season and in practice and when you take a key player and especially such a talented shooter out of it you can expect things to be awkward and sub optimal for some time. The PP has been great all season except for the two games without Malkin, I wouldn't be worried. I rather focus on the fact that the PK looked good again after imploding against Florida.

While there is no direct chain of command, such as in a military situation, that does not mean there aren't players who have the commanding presence to lead. Most of us see this in our workplaces, or perhaps in social casual gatherings. Where even though most of us are on "even" ground with each other, there are certain people who command respect or can organize/direct others. Leaders and followers. And it's not always your most talented players, despite sports wisdom of always handing these "C"s and "A"s to them.

I think those leaders need to be validated by the staff to have any real hold over a player with a motivational issue. If the advice of the 'officer' is not heeded, there needs to be consequences. When the leaders set an example, it needs to be reenforced.

I've stated my opinion a lot of times already. I don't think the Pens have a personnel issue. We've seen most of these guys as warriors before. The will is there, but confidence has vanished. I blame the system. They turn the puck over way too often and don't seem to learn from it. There's no patience or savvy at all. It seems they constantly try to force the play whether it's there or not. The usual solution is to up the tempo which just results in more errors. Opponents seem to have a really easy time reading breakouts by the Pens.

Someone posted that the Pens were cruising earlier in the season. I disagree. Most wins I've watched, even with big differentials have been ugly to me. When this team looks good, it's because of talent.

Desiato wrote:I think those leaders need to be validated by the staff to have any real hold over a player with a motivational issue. If the advice of the 'officer' is not heeded, there needs to be consequences. When the leaders set an example, it needs to be reenforced.

I've stated my opinion a lot of times already. I don't think the Pens have a personnel issue. We've seen most of these guys as warriors before. The will is there, but confidence has vanished. I blame the system. They turn the puck over way too often and don't seem to learn from it. There's no patience or savvy at all. It seems they constantly try to force the play whether it's there or not. The usual solution is to up the tempo which just results in more errors. Opponents seem to have a really easy time reading breakouts by the Pens.

Someone posted that the Pens were cruising earlier in the season. I disagree. Most wins I've watched, even with big differentials have been ugly to me. When this team looks good, it's because of talent.